Exoskeleton training was generally safe and feasible in a heterogeneous sample of persons with SCI. Results indicate potential benefits on gait function and balance.

Since its first implementation in a medical programme at McMaster University, Canada, problem-based learning (PBL) has become a well-established means of teaching and learning medicine. Extensive research has been conducted and a number of strengths of the method are well supported. Several items, however, remain unclear although there is evidence that no relevant difference exists in factual knowledge among students from PBL and traditional curricula, a controlled, randomized study has not been conducted to address this issue. The Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne is in the process of integrating elements of PBL into its curriculum. In the spring term of 1997, after seven semesters of experience with PBL supplementing the traditional course of basic pharmacology, we did for the first time use PBL instead of the lecture-based course (LBL) and conducted a controlled prospective study to determine the effects of this intervention. One-hundred and twenty-three students were randomly assigned to either PBL (n = 63), with tutorial groups of up to nine students, or to the traditional, lecture-based course (n = 60). Analysis of the results of both groups in the examination of basic pharmacology, consisting of multiple-choice and short-essay questions, revealed similar scores with a tendency favouring PBL students in the category of short-essay questions. Hence, it seems clear that PBL does not imply a disadvantage in terms of factual knowledge. Students considered PBL to be an effective learning method and favoured it over the lecture format. Furthermore, students reported positive effects of PBL in terms of use of additional learning resources, interdisciplinarity, team work and learning fun.

Training seemed not to provoke new pain. Spasticity decreased after a single training session. SCIM III and quality of life increased longitudinally for subsets of participants.

Limited access to expert tutors is a problem that can be addressed by using tutors from different stages of medical or non-medical (under-, post-) graduate education. To address whether such differences in qualification affect the results of process evaluation by participants or their learning outcome (exam results), we analysed the data of a 4-year prospective study performed with 787 3rd-year medical students (111 groups of 5-10 participants) taking an obligatory problem-based learning (PbL)-course of basic pharmacology. We compared peer tutors (undergraduate medical students, >/=4th year), non-expert (junior) staff tutors (physicians, pharmacists, veterinarians, biologists, or chemists during postgraduate education), and expert (senior) staff tutors (completed postgraduate education). Evaluation scores related to PbL gave the highest values for senior staff-led groups. The tutor's performance score of peer-led groups did not differ from those of staff-led groups, but the score obtained from groups tutored by junior staff was lower than that obtained with senior staff tutors. Students' weekly preparation time tended to be lower in peer-led groups, while learning time spent specifically on exam preparation seemed to be increased compared to PbL-groups of staff tutors. As a putative confounding variable, tutors' experience in coaching PbL-groups was also investigated. Groups led by experienced tutors, defined as tutors with at least one term of previous PbL tutoring, were found to have significantly higher evaluation scores. Interestingly, neither tutors' subject-matter expertise (peer students, junior staff, or senior staff) nor their teaching-method expertise showed any influence on PbL-groups' mean test scores in a written exam. This indicates that the effect of tutor expertise on the learning process is not associated with a difference in learning outcome when just factual knowledge is assessed by traditional methods.

Graduates of the new curriculum showed a high degree of satisfaction with their undergraduate education and its preparation of them for medical practice. Specifically, they were very content with the particular emphases of the new curriculum.